Housing for pregnant 17 year old

mlz1413

beautyqueen88 wrote: »

i knew full well what i was doing when i got pregnant and wont go into it that but i think it's complete and utter bull when teens go on about all these 'accidents' there's no excuse for getting pregnant in my eyes.

Beauty - thank you for being honest about knowing you were getting pregnant - I know of many people who say 'the pill failed me'
In fact as the pill is 98% effective I must know ALL the 2% for my town - regardless of the fact I don't know 300 women.

Anyway it makes a refreshing change to hear someone admit they got pregnant on purpose because they wanted too. I'm not saying I agree with what you did, just the honesty of admitting it.

LillyJ

mlz1413 wrote: »

Beauty - thank you for being honest about knowing you were getting pregnant - I know of many people who say 'the pill failed me'
In fact as the pill is 98% effective I must know ALL the 2% for my town - regardless of the fact I don't know 300 women.

Anyway it makes a refreshing change to hear someone admit they got pregnant on purpose because they wanted too. I'm not saying I agree with what you did, just the honesty of admitting it.

I wish people would understand these statistics before blindly quoting them! It is per woman year rather than per woman.

Therefore if you know 100 women EVERY YEAR 2 will become pregnant. People aren't only sexually active for only one year of their lives (one would hope), and therefore every year, that will increase the number of women you know who have at some point become accidentally pregnant.

Statistically, over 20 years of sexual activity, 40 out of those 100 women would have become pregnant accidentally.

That is pretty signigificant if you ask me.

meester

carlislelass wrote: »

why should youngsters get pregnant and then expect the council to house them?

I got my gf pregnant when I was 19. We married and then I attempted to bring her back to the UK (she's foreign). Not allowed, I had to get a job and accommodation (without any help from benefits), before she was allowed in.

We now have two kids and a nice 4-bed detached house (rented) in Surrey.

meester

LillyJ wrote: »

It can be done cheaply, however, £100 buys a lot of nappies! What I am saying is for a couple on JSA it is money that may be better spent elsewhere. Although I do like the gesture of commitment it makes, it isn't an essential at this moment in time.

a lot of people do not want an illegitimate child. £100 is not a lot of money in a lifetime.

mlz1413

LillyJ wrote: »

I.Therefore if you know 100 women EVERY YEAR 2 will become pregnant. .That is pretty signigificant if you ask me.

LillyJ thankyou for your info, it does change the % I agree.

But what I was trying to say is many women SAY the pill has failed them when they haven't been taking it. It was a breath of fresh air to hear someone admit differently.

LillyJ

meester wrote: »

a lot of people do not want an illegitimate child. £100 is not a lot of money in a lifetime.

No, £100 isn't alot at all over a lifetime. It IS, however, a hell of a lot over the next year or so with both parents unemployed and soon to be homeless. £100 is a lot of money for me and I am neither unemployed, homeless, expecting a baby, nor 17 years old.

"Illegitimate" is a very outdated terminology, and there is absolutely no reason why marriage should come before food and roof over head. THe baby couldn't care less whether it's parents got married before it was born, or 2 years later.
What it cares about is that is isn't hungry or cold, hasn't got a wet or dirty bum, and is loved.

barnaby-bear

LillyJ wrote: »

No, £100 isn't alot at all over a lifetime. It IS, however, a hell of a lot over the next year or so with both parents unemployed and soon to be homeless. £100 is a lot of money for me and I am neither unemployed, homeless, expecting a baby, nor 17 years old.
.

£100 is infinitely more than the father's earned this year.... so it's a 'high' percentage of his earnings...

meester

LillyJ wrote: »

No, £100 isn't alot at all over a lifetime. It IS, however, a hell of a lot over the next year or so with both parents unemployed and soon to be homeless. £100 is a lot of money for me and I am neither unemployed, homeless, expecting a baby, nor 17 years old.

"Illegitimate" is a very outdated terminology, and there is absolutely no reason why marriage should come before food and roof over head. THe baby couldn't care less whether it's parents got married before it was born, or 2 years later.
What it cares about is that is isn't hungry or cold, hasn't got a wet or dirty bum, and is loved.

From what I've read, grandparents will cover the £100. They may well not feel it to be outdated, and it's a great gesture of commitment not so much to each other, but to the child for the rest of its life, during which time they will need to provide moral and financial support when needed.

One of my friends is a right-on type who doesn't think marriage means anything and has a four-year-old child. The Ozzie wife has decided she doesn't like the UK and they aren't quite 'right' and she's gone off to Australia, so he's followed suit and has moved to Australia to live on his own but close enough to his wife + child to see him regularly. I can't help thinking that the initial commitment of marriage because of the child would have made more sense to provide him with security as he grows up.

LillyJ

meester wrote: »

From what I've read, grandparents will cover the £100. They may well not feel it to be outdated, and it's a great gesture of commitment not so much to each other, but to the child for the rest of its life, during which time they will need to provide moral and financial support when needed.

One of my friends is a right-on type who doesn't think marriage means anything and has a four-year-old child. The Ozzie wife has decided she doesn't like the UK and they aren't quite 'right' and she's gone off to Australia, so he's followed suit and has moved to Australia to live on his own but close enough to his wife + child to see him regularly. I can't help thinking that the initial commitment of marriage because of the child would have made more sense to provide him with security as he grows up.

I most definately don't think marriage means nothing, I am a strong believer in marriage (not just for a child's sake however - I would rather my parents be together because they love each other rather than because I was born or whatever) however I believe these two young people don't have room for what they want at this moment in time. They need to cut back to the bare essentials, and I think the grandparents would be better off saving that money.

That is just my opinion, I just know I would rather get my kid a roof over it's head first. Being homeless has more social stigma than your parents not being married.

~Chameleon~

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Though on the other hand, having children this early means she will have a lot of "life" left to live once her children are grown up. She can go to college and uni then and still have a 20 year career ahead of her.

I used to think this way too, and probably for the majority of people this could certainly be true. However, life has a horrible way of throwing a curve ball and there's no guarantee that one will be physically or mentally able to go and do all the things they perhaps would have done in their 20's had they not been tied to a family.

Life is often too short!